Another macro question?

[derek_thornton]

I have been looking at the Nikon 300mm f/4-extention tubes combo for a while.

I have seen plenty of shoots from differant users of insects and they all look

excellant. I have also been eyeing a older MF 300mm f/2.8. The new f/4 has a

close focus at 5' while the older f/2.8 is at 10'.

 

My question is, will the older MF lens work as well as the new unit with some

nikon extention tubes being that it lacks 5' on close focus. I can get the old

lens for $900.00 and I would think it would work nice with a TC for wading

birds on the side.

[Mary Doo]

IMO 10' is a lot of discance for "macro". Yes you may be able to bring it closer with filters and extenders, but why not get a real macro lens? If you don't want to spend a lot on a Nikon micro lens that you can't shoot wildlife with, one option would be to get an MF Kiron or Vivitar 105mm for a song at eBay.

 

Mary

[derek_thornton]

I have not seen those lenses on ebay for a while. Been looking for last 2 months. I do have a Nikon 105mm VR and although it is nice for the snakes it stinks on buterflies and dragons. Is a matter of fact my 70-200mm walks all over it handheld for dragons. 70-200mm is not a macro either.

[erik_loza]

You want the older Nikkor 300mm f4.0AF and PK-13 27mm tube. No point to the f2.8 in this case.

[mark_chappell]

If you're interested in using a 300 mm as a semi-macro lens, by all means get the closest-

focusing unit you can. Also, keep in mind that to get into the 'true' macro range (like, 1:2

to 1:1 reproduction) you will need A LOT of tubes. The approximate formula for

magnification is:<P>

 

magnification = focal length/extension<P>

 

For a 300 mm, it's worth considering one of the surprisingly good close-up lenses like the

Nikon 6T (discontinued, I understand) or the Canon 500D. I have the latter in 77mm filter

size and it reduces the maximum focus distance to 500 mm (a bit less than 2 feet).

Another useful approach is a teleconverter.<P>

 

<A HREF="http://eosdoc.com/jlcalc/"> This page</a> has calculations for Canon lenses

that ought to be approximately correct for equivalent focal lengths of Nikon lenses.

[keith_leonin]

Sounds like you are looking at the 300mm more for wading birds first, then macro on the side, NOT the other way around. Nothing wrong with that, so, CU lenses, ext. tubes and TC's would get you in closer, albeit at loss of light, so you'll need some kind of lighting rig.

 

If wading birds are the primary intent, then I see th point of getting an f2.8 lens; however, if macro is a higher priority, then, other than inherent lens IQ, the max aperture is more or less irrelevant, since you'll most likely be shooting stopped down anywa to maximize DOF, then bombarding the subject with your lighting rig.

 

Macro shooting is usually about trying to find the balance between sufficient DOF and enough lighting.

 

Good luck!

 

Keith

[HuskyMason1]

the Nikon 200mm f4 MF is a good length for shooting butterflies not too expensive either.

[alex_lofquist]

I will occasionally use my 300 f/4 AF for macros when I need the working distance. With the TC14B the working distance is still 7'3", but with a reproduction ratio of 1/4.9. Alternately, using a 25mm extension tube the working distance is 4'8" and the RR is 1/4.1. Using both the tube at the camera and the TC14B at the lens gives a WD of 5'10" and a RR of 1/3.3. Just be sure to use a good tripod and head!

[marcomorandi]

http://www.photo.net/photo/6485619

[joseph_smith3]

I have found that using older Nikon 300mm and 400mm mf lenses with extension tubes and teleconverters, the 14B, result in excellent images for those subjects that cannot be photographed with normal macro lenses, like the 200mm f 4.0 macro lens. These subjects might be frogs or dragonflies in ponds. You need to make sure that your tripod and ball head is up to the task--ie very rigid-- and your technique is excellent. Use your self timer or better a cable release to trip the shutter. The 300mm f 4.0 AFS lens used in the same fashion produces excellent results too. Joe Smith